From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jul 18 01:21:30 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCAC1065673
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:21:30 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.net)
Received: from lariat.net (lariat.net [66.119.58.2])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01C238FC1A
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:21:29 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from brett@lariat.net)
Received: from anne-o1dpaayth1.lariat.net (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.net@lariat.net
	[66.119.58.2]) by lariat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA16416;
	Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:21:19 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200907180121.TAA16416@lariat.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:21:14 -0600
To: aw1@stade.co.uk, chat@freebsd.org
From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.net>
In-Reply-To: <20090718000116.GA8379@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk>
References: <200907172257.QAA15292@lariat.net>
	<20090718000116.GA8379@steerpike.hanley.stade.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Bourne shell short-circuit operators improperly documented
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:21:30 -0000

At 06:01 PM 7/17/2009, Adrian Wontroba wrote:

>No it is succinctly correct but confusing (the UNIX way?). These
>operators work on exit codes where 0 = success = true and and !0 =
>failure = false.

As I understand it, when it comes to UNIX result codes, 0 doesn't 
really mean "true" -- it means "no error." (In other words, it 
means "false.") Whereas any nonzero value means there was an error 
(and indicates what kind). In other words, it means that it's 
"true" that there was an error.

So, the semantics of the operators are supposed to be that "false" 
is "true?" Aaargh!

No wonder I don't use short circuit operators much. When zero 
equals one, it gets rather confusing.

It's also confusing that they are called "AND" and "OR" operators 
(and look like the short-circuit AND and OR operators in other 
languages, which all do what you would expect).

--Brett